CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2006

Diaz v. White Plains Coat & Apron Co.

Manuel Diaz, a laundry worker, was injured after falling from a laundry bin while employed in a building owned by White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. He initiated an action for personal injuries against the defendant, predicated on premises liability. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case and sought to amend its answer to include a Workers' Compensation defense, arguing surprise due to a shift in the plaintiff's theory of liability to negligent supervision. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion. On appeal, the interlocutory judgment was reversed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case was granted, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Premises LiabilityNegligent SupervisionWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityPrima Facie CaseMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJury VerdictInterlocutory JudgmentNew York LawPersonal Injury Damages
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1981

Blyer v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

The National Labor Relations Board sought a preliminary injunction against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear, and Allied Workers’ Union, International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union (ILG) for alleged unfair labor practices under NLRA Section 8(b)(4)(D), related to picketing for a jobber’s agreement. The court examined the applicability of the garment-industry proviso in NLRA Section 8(e) to the alleged work-assignment dispute. It found that the Board's theory was novel and lacked sufficient factual findings. Considering factors like the ILG's initial lawful picketing, the employer's non-innocent status, and the desire to preserve the status quo, the court denied the injunction, concluding it would be inequitable and improper.

Labor LawUnfair Labor PracticePreliminary InjunctionNLRAGarment Industry ProvisoWork Assignment DisputeJobber's AgreementPicketingSecondary BoycottGarment Union
References
6
Case No. 76 Misc 2d 769
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 1974

Coates v. City of New York

Coates, a former sanitation worker for the City of New York, was involuntarily retired due to an accident disability and subsequently sued to recover monetary compensation for unused terminal leave, accrued vacation time, and unscheduled holiday work periods. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially granted Coates' motion for summary judgment, awarding him $3,406.53. The City of New York appealed this decision. The appellate court modified the order-judgment by reducing the award to $1,283.62, finding that the collective bargaining agreement did not stipulate cash payments for terminal leave and accrued vacation, nor did statutory authority mandate such benefits upon immediate retirement. However, the court affirmed the portion of the award pertaining to unscheduled holiday work periods, upholding the defendant's liability for that specific claim.

Employment LawPublic Employee BenefitsAccident Disability RetirementSummary Judgment AppealCollective Bargaining AgreementMunicipal LawAdministrative CodeConstitutional LawDamages CalculationWorkers' Rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1990

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Valenzano

The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund initiated an action against Marcello Valenzano, doing business as ABC Contracting Co., for unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. The defendant failed to comply with discovery requests, leading to an order conditionally striking his answer and later, a default judgment. Defendant's pro se motion to vacate the default judgment, asserting non-receipt of documents and partial compliance, was denied by the IAS court. The court found service proper and noted the defendant's failure to demonstrate a meritorious defense. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding the lower court acted within its discretion to strike the answer for willful failure to comply with discovery, considering the lack of reasonable excuse and meritorious defense.

Default JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsFailure to ComplyWorkers' Compensation InsuranceVacate JudgmentMeritorious DefenseService of ProcessAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureSupreme Court
References
3
Case No. ADJ1500144 (SAC 0290200) ADJ820065 (SAC 0352087) ADJ1538813 (MON 0309956) ADJ3751110 (MON 0326164)
Regular
Apr 09, 2009

PARVIN OLFATI (aka PATTY OLFATI) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Legally Uninsured; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND (Adjusting Agency)

This case involves applicant Parvin Olfati's petition for reconsideration of an order dismissing her four workers' compensation cases. The dismissal was based on her failure to timely object to a Notice of Intention to dismiss, stemming from her refusal to participate and her non-appearance at a mandatory settlement conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied her petition, finding she did not establish good cause for her non-appearance or failure to timely object. Her arguments regarding fear for her safety, lost files, and denial of discovery were deemed insufficient to excuse her non-compliance.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissMandatory Settlement ConferenceGood CauseTimely ObjectionWCJReport and RecommendationAdministrative Law JudgeEAMS
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2011

Alliantgroup, L.P. v. Feingold

This Memorandum and Order addresses Alliantgroup, L.P.'s lawsuit against its former employee, Jeffrey Feingold, for various claims including breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and computer fraud. Alliantgroup alleged Feingold violated non-compete, non-solicitation, and nondisclosure provisions by joining a competitor and taking client information. The court previously issued a preliminary injunction, reforming the overbroad non-compete clause. In this decision, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Feingold on all claims except for the alleged failure to repay a $25,000 retention bonus, citing Alliantgroup's failure to present sufficient evidence for damages or to meet claim elements. The case is set for a status conference to address the sole remaining breach of contract claim.

Employment LawNon-Compete ClauseNon-SolicitationNon-Disclosure AgreementTrade SecretsBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyConversionTortious InterferenceComputer Fraud and Abuse Act
References
78
Case No. No. 92 CV 1258
Regular Panel Decision

Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary

The plaintiffs, Haitian Service Organizations and Haitian individuals, commenced a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Government following the 1991 Haitian military coup. They alleged violations of First and Fifth Amendment rights, statutory rights to counsel, failure to adhere to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures, arbitrary and capricious agency action, breach of the non-refoulement duty, and equal protection violations due to a separate asylum track for Haitians. The Government moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the Government's motion in part, dismissing claims related to the extraterritorial application of the statutory right to counsel and the failure to follow APA rulemaking procedures, but denied the motion for all other claims, including those based on the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, arbitrary and capricious action, non-refoulement, and equal protection.

Asylum LawRefugee ActImmigration and Nationality ActFirst AmendmentFifth AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAdministrative Procedure ActClass ActionDeclaratory Relief
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gude v. Elm Coated Fabrics Div. of W. R. Grace Co.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding an occupational disease claim. The claimant, employed by Elm Coated Fabrics, developed pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema due to workplace exposure. The central issue was determining the date of disablement to establish liability between two insurance carriers: Maryland Casualty Co. (carrier on initial diagnosis, March 20, 1973) and CNA Insurance Company (carrier on total disablement, August 24, 1973). The Board, affirmed by a referee, set the date of disablement as March 20, 1973, holding Maryland liable and requiring reimbursement to CNA. The employer and Maryland appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial medical evidence and precedent supporting the earlier date.

Occupational DiseaseDate of DisablementPulmonary FibrosisEmphysemaCarrier LiabilityMedical Treatment DateWorkers' Compensation Board AppealSubstantial EvidenceReimbursementInsurance Coverage Dispute
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1996

Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of El Paso, Inc. v. Flores

George Flores sued his employer, Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of El Paso, Inc., alleging retaliatory termination after filing a workers' compensation claim, violating Texas Labor Code Section 451.001. A jury awarded Flores $21,000 in actual damages and $200,000 in exemplary damages. Burlington appealed the verdict, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the jury's award of actual damages, finding sufficient evidence for liability, lost wages, and mental anguish. However, the court reversed the award of punitive damages, concluding there was no evidence of willful or malicious conduct by Burlington.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory TerminationWrongful TerminationTexas Labor CodeActual DamagesPunitive DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceLost WagesMental AnguishEmployment Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy Jack for Her, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

This case involves an action initially brought in state court by Billy Jack for Her, Inc., an apparel jobber, against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear and Allied Workers’ Union. Billy Jack alleged tortious interference with contractual relations due to the Union's picketing aimed at securing a 'Hazantown agreement.' The Union removed the case to federal court. The court denied Billy Jack's motion to remand, ruling that the state law claim was preempted by federal labor law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction. The Union's motion to modify a temporary restraining order was denied as moot because the order had already expired.

Labor disputeFederal preemptionTortious interference with contractPicketingHazantown agreementNational Labor Relations ActNLRA Section 8(b)(4)(B)NLRA Section 8(b)(7)(A)Removal jurisdictionFederal question jurisdiction
References
69
Showing 1-10 of 7,855 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational